Charismatic-Plebiscitary Leadership in Modern Democracies

Why is it relevant for democracies of the 21st century to be able to detect, in time, the presence of charismatic-plebiscitary leaders (CPL)?

Before answering this question, it is necessary to refer to the main characteristics that define a CPL.

First, charisma is defined as an extraordinary quality, which does not depend on whether the leader actually possesses exceptional abilities, but rather on how followers “see things” and whether they believe them (Subedi & Scott, 2021, p. 489).

The CPL has a revolutionary character, a disruptive narrative, and at the same time a hopeful message in times of crisis. They use crises to their advantage by attributing to themselves the will of their followers, the voice of the People. Thus, charisma is a direct social relationship between the leader and followers; therefore, it is not mediated by institutions (Subedi & Scott, 2021, p. 493).

Thus, one of the greatest sources of power of a CPL is the affective devotion of followers, through which a CPL shapes collective psychology before institutions react. Under this premise, the CPL captures the public narrative, making information manipulation practically irreversible. That is, they do not need to completely control institutions to exercise power; and by exercising this power without brakes, authoritarianism begins to become institutionalized.

Under the above premises, the charisma of a CPL is “not an inherent personal quality” but is instead the result of a “politically constructed” process (Subedi & Scott, 2021, p. 488). Today, democracies, from conservatives to liberals, are adopting regimes of plebiscitary leader democracy (PLD) and evolving into hybrid regimes that mix democratic and authoritarian traits.

Based on the above, a direct answer to the initial question is:

It is important to detect the presence of a CPL or PLD, since this has a direct implication for democracies. In practice, PLDs can become de facto authoritarian regimes, a clear warning sign that places 21^st century democracies at risk. It is therefore essential to create additional democratic protection systems, since the traditional mechanisms may no longer be sufficient.

References

Subedi, D. B., & Scott, A. (2021). Populism, authoritarianism, and charismatic-plebiscitary leadership in contemporary Asia: a comparative perspective from India and Myanmar. Contemporary Politics, 27(5), 487–507. doi:10.1080/13569775.2021.1917162